Telemedicine for the provision of medication abortion to pregnant people at up to twelve weeks of pregnancy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Telemedicine represents an important strategy to facilitate access to medication abortion (MAB) procedures, reduces distance barriers and expands coverage to underserved communities. The aim is evaluating the self-managed MAB (provided through telemedicine as the sole intervention or in comparison to in-person care) in pregnant people at up to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews), LILACS, SciELO, and Google Scholar. The search was based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design (PICOS) framework, and was not restricted to any years of publication, and studies could be published in English or Spanish. Study screening and selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction were performed by peer reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated with RoB 2.0 and ROBIS-I. A narrative and descriptive synthesis of the results was conducted. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were performed using Review Manager version 5.4 to calculate pooled risk differences, along with their individual 95% confidence intervals. The rate of evidence certainty was based on GRADE recommendations.

Results

21 articles published between 2011 and 2022 met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 20 were observational studies, and 1 was a randomized clinical trial. Regarding the risk of bias, 5 studies had a serious risk, 15 had a moderate risk, and 1 had an undetermined risk. In terms of the type of intervention, 7 compared telemedicine to standard care. The meta-analysis of effectiveness revealed no statistically significant differences between the two modalities of care (RD = 0.01; 95%CI 0.00, 0.02). Our meta-analyses show that there were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events or in patient satisfaction when comparing the two methods of healthcare delivery.

Conclusion

Telemedicine is an effective and viable alternative for MAB, similar to standard care. The occurrence of complications was low in both forms of healthcare delivery. Telemedicine services are an opportunity to expand access to safe abortion services.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12978-024-01864-4.

Abstract

Globally, unsafe abortion causes 47,000 deaths and 5 million sexual and reproductive dysfunctions in young pregnant people due to complications of the procedure. This practice is related to barriers to accessing safe abortion services secondary to health system limitations and inequities in the distribution of resources.

Telemedicine has proven to be an efficient care alternative to reduce distancing gaps, decrease waiting time and rationalize the costs derived from the procedure. Consequently, several health systems in the world use this model with differences in treatment schemes, weeks of gestation, pregnancy confirmation methods and measurement of reported outcomes. For this reason, evaluating the effectiveness and safety of self-managed medication abortion (MAB) by telemedicine is a support for decision makers who consider implementing or expanding remote care services.

This systematic review integrated studies that evaluated MAB only by Telemedicine or in comparison with standard care on pregnant people with 12 weeks gestation or less. Available studies until January 2023 were chosen. Screening and selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by expert reviewers. Aspects such as the effectiveness, safety, and satisfaction of the procedure, among other outcomes, were reviewed. A narrative and descriptive synthesis was carried out, as well as several meta-analyses of the differences in risks between Telemedicine and in-person care.

The meta-analysis of studies comparing telemedicine care with standard services reveals that the type of care provided does not affect the effectiveness and safety of MAB, nor does it affect user satisfaction, follow-up, or medication adherence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12978-024-01864-4.